proof that John 19 was recorded by an eyewitness, and that Christ died on the cross

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

"But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you may believe." (John 19:34,35)

"Repeated observations and experiments with men and animals have led me to the following results--When the left side is freely pierced after death by a large knife, comporable in size to a Roman spear, three distinct cases may be noted:

1st. No flow of any kind follows the wound, except a slight trickling of blood.
2nd. A copious flow of blood only follows the wound.
3rd. A flow of water only, succeeded by a few drops of blood, follows the wound.

Of these three cases, the first is that which usually occurs; the second is found in cases of death by drowning and by strychnia, and may be demonstrated by destroying an animal with that poison, and it can be proved to be the natural case of a crucified person; and the third is found in cases of death from pleurisy, pericarditis, and rupture of the heart. With the foregoing cases most anatomists who have devoted their attention to this subject are familiar; but the following cases, although readily explicable on physiological principles, are not recorded in the books (except by St. John)...

4th. A copious flow of water, succeeded by a copious flow of blood, follows the wound.
5th. A copious flow of blood, succeeded by a copious flow of water, follows the wound.

Death by crucifixion causes a condition of blood in the lungs similar to that produced by drowning and strychnia; the fourth case would occur in a crucified person who had previously to crucifixion suffered from pleuritic effusion; and the fifth case would occur in a crucified person, who had died on the cross from rupture of the heart. The history of the days preceding our Lord's crucifixion effectually excludes the supposition of pleurisy, which is also out of the question if blood first and water afterwards followed the wound. There remains, therefore, no supposition possible to explain the recorded phenomenon except the combination of crucifixion and the rupture of the heart.

That rupture of the heart was the cause of the death of Christ is ably maintained by Dr. William Stroud; and that rupture of the heart actually occured I firmly believe...

The importance of this is obvious. It [shows] that the narrative in St. John xix. could never have been invented; that the facts recorded must have been seen by an eyewitness; and that the eyewitness was so astonished he apparently thought the phenomenon miraculous." (Houghton, as cited in Cook, CHB, 349-50)

[Celyn]

Originally posted by Fear_nam_Beanntan
........"Repeated observations and experiments with men and animals have led me to the following results--When the left side is freely pierced after death by a large knife, comporable in size to a Roman spear, three distinct cases may be noted:.......

Experiments? They sound like pretty nasty experiments.

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Yeah, let's hope that this doctor had cadavers delivered to him, and that he didn't make his own.

[Celyn]

I'm pretty sure that corpses would not have quite the same bleeding reacation as live people.

[Marti33]

you seem to go to great lenghts to prove something which in actual fact cannot be proven. We only have circumstantial evidence. Can you prove that what is written in the bible is anything other than written in the bible, you cant, no matter how hard you try to convince us.

The only way you can prove any of this is to go back in time, and we would all have to come with you.

[Celyn]

Originally posted by Marti33
........

The only way you can prove any of this is to go back in time, and we would all have to come with you.

Um, I plead

- a prior engagement

- washing my hair that day

- a diplomatic "cold"

- need to visit a sick auntie

- need to attend grandmother's funeral

- all of the above

Not planning on any time travel to meet that kind of experimenter! Eek, no!

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by Marti33
The only way you can prove any of this is to go back in time, and we would all have to come with you.

You can check the Bible against archeological fact, and against the witness of contemporary documents.

History is knowable. You don't have to go back in time. You just have to analyze whatever evidence is extant in the present.